quote:Huge issue affecting both dominant ideologies. Both seem to prefer security over liberty.

I think drug testing a guy before he becomes a police officer is a compelling state interest. You can make a good argument that the state's interest is greater than the individual's in that case. Not so much for say, a postal worker. There's no genuine public safety issue there, and I would oppose drug testing in that case (barring any previous drug convictions).

But let's take the logic of "we can search anyone who goes in an airport under consent search" to another location. By the same rationale, the government should be able to search any person using a public road at any time, for any reason. If we put up checkpoints all over, the people would know the cost of using this PUBLIC road is CONSENTING to a search. After all, you don't have to use the public road. Build a private road if you wish. It's completely unworkable.

If you don't like the search then stop flying...nobody's forcing you to do that...and if you don't like blowing into a device when suspected of drinking and driving then stop driving or drinking and driving.

quote:Then we need an innovative solution to not violating the fourth amendment.

How about hiring people instead of welfare. Temp jobs paying minimum wage. At least we get some productivity (probably not a lot) in exchange for the tax dollar and some motivation for people to get training or better jobs.

quote:If you don't like the search then stop flying...nobody's forcing you to do that...and if you don't like blowing into a device when suspected of drinking and driving then stop driving or drinking and driving.

Federal courts have already held that Florida randomly drug testing agency employees was unconstitutional. Positions that relate directly to safety are exempted due to strong governmental interest.

quote:A federal court in Miami ruled Thursday that Gov. Rick Scott’s order to randomly test a majority of state employees for drugs is unconstitutional, saying there is not a compelling enough reason to do so.

quote:But let's take the logic of "we can search anyone who goes in an airport under consent search" to another location. By the same rationale, the government should be able to search any person using a public road at any time, for any reason. If we put up checkpoints all over, the people would know the cost of using this PUBLIC road is CONSENTING to a search. After all, you don't have to use the public road. Build a private road if you wish. It's completely unworkable.

Air traffic is federally regulated. President has also been set which dictates the need for airport security.

Would you board a commercial flight that did not screen passengers?

Are you simply arguing against the government taking over airport security? What other method do you propose?

quote:How about hiring people instead of welfare. Temp jobs paying minimum wage. At least we get some productivity (probably not a lot) in exchange for the tax dollar and some motivation for people to get training or better jobs.

I think this is better than simply community service. Sort of a teach a man to fish principle.

Presidents always look for ways to create jobs. Here is a good place to start.

quote:Federal courts have already held that Florida randomly drug testing agency employees was unconstitutional. Positions that relate directly to safety are exempted.

A federal court in Miami ruled Thursday that Gov. Rick Scott’s order to randomly test a majority of state employees for drugs is unconstitutional, saying there is not a compelling enough reason to do so.

Like I said...the irony is that the entire program is unconstitutional.

quote:Is the government illegally seizing my property when they "force" me to provide my financial data to qualify for food stamps?

No.

What do you think tax filings are?

So, how is this any different than asking a recipient for a drug test? Private information is private information to me. They ask race too. What does my race or money I earn have to do with food stamps?